In article <REIDMP.910313132041@maine.maine.EDU> reidmp@maine.maine.edu (Reid M. Pinchback) writes:>In "Crafting a Compiler" (Fischer & LeBlanc), the pros and cons>of a strong LL(1) versus a full LL(1) parser are discussed. The>text implies that the example code in the book is for a strong LL(1)>parser. It doesn't clearly mention how the actual construction of>the parser differs for the two cases.

I thought for k=1, LL(k) and Strong LL(k) were the same? I don't have
Fischer & LeBlanc at hand (It's at home) (BTW, it's my favorite text to
teach from). On page 156 of Waite and Goos, we have Theorem 7.3: "Every
LL(1) grammar is a strong LL(1) grammar," preceeded by a simple proof that
follows immediately from Theorem 7.2: blah blah blah.